1. Heard Mr. B. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned standing counsel for the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council ('the Council') who appears for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. Mr. E.G. Suja, learned counsel represents the private respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2. The petitioner who joined the Forest Department of the Council as a Forest Guard on 25.11.1983 and is currently serving in the cadre of Assistant Chief Forest Officer (A.C.F.O.), challenges the induction of respondent No.4 and 5 in the year 1996 as Assistant Chief Forest Officers after the said two respondents successfully completed their training in the State Forest Service College, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner contends that the private respondents should have been inducted in the lower cadre of Ranger and not in the higher cadre of Assistant Chief Forest Officer in the year 1996 and by their induction to the higher post, the service career of the petitioner has been adversely affected. 3. The main foundation for the petitioner's above contention is based on the bonds executed by the private respondents as stipendiary students when they proceeded to pursue the course in the State Forest Service College, Coimbatore arid translated copies of the bonds executed by the private respondents are enclosed as annexure in the writ petition. 4. The relevant clause 2 of the bond executed by the respondent No.4 may be extracted herein for ready reference: "2. The said Mr. Tennyson Saiborne shall, after completing the studies and passing all the prescribed examinations of the said Forest College, and if so required to do, served the Chief Executive Member in the Forest Department of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council in Meghalaya for a period of not less than 5 (five) years and shall during the whole of such period diligently and sufficiently do act and discharge all duties which may be required to be done by his capacities as an officer of the said Department in the rank of Forest Ranger." A similar condition is also inserted in the bond executed by the respondent No.5 Shri Rogesson Kylla. 5.1 In the schedule of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council Service Rules, 1961 ('the Service Rules'), the post of Assistant Chief Forest Officer is included amongst the post in Class II cadre. 5.1 In the schedule of the Khasi Hills Autonomous District Council Service Rules, 1961 ('the Service Rules'), the post of Assistant Chief Forest Officer is included amongst the post in Class II cadre. The post of Ranger which is below that of the Assistant Chief Forest Officer is in Class III cadre as a residual entry, as the Post of Ranger is not mentioned amongst the cadre posts in Class I or Class II services in the schedule to the Service Rules. 5.2 The Service Rules do not show the Post of Assistant Chief Forest Officer to be a promotional post only and direct recruitment to the post is not prohibited by any of the provisions in the Service Rules. 6. Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the promotion criteria prescribed for the post of Deputy Chief Forest Officer, Additional Chief Forest Officer and the Chief Forest Officer and submits that since higher posts are to be filled up on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit, if the private respondents in the year 1996 would have been inducted as Ranger, there would have been opportunity for the petitioner to be considered for promotion to the higher post along with the private respondents. He submits that because of the bonds executed by the private respondents, they were obliged to serve as a Ranger for a period of 5 years. It is submitted that if the private respondents would have accordingly served for 5 years as Ranger up to the year 2001, the writ petitioner who was promoted as Ranger on 8.2.2000, could have been considered together for promotion to the next higher cadre. 7.1 Resisting the petitioner's contentions, Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned standing counsel for the KHADC submits that the petitioner has approached this court with a stale claim many years after the induction of the private respondents in the cadre of Assistant Chief Forest Officer and since in the meantime, the two respondents have been promoted to the higher posts of Deputy Chief Forest Officer and subsequently to the Additional Chief Forest Officer and the Chief Forest Officer respectively, the case filed at such belated stage, ought not to be entertained by the court. 7.2 The learned counsel further submits that there is nothing in the Service Rules or in the bonds executed by the private respondents which creates a bar for direct entry of the private respondents (after successful completion of their training) in the posts of Assistant Chief Forest Officer. It is also submitted by Mr. Kyhta that as the training received by the private respondents in the State Forest Service College, Coimbatore was considered to be specialized qualification equivalent to M.Sc. in Forestry as per the Notification dated 15.1.1999 issued by the Director, Forest Research Institute, Dehradun, the Council Authorities took a conscious decision to induct the qualified trainees at an appropriate level commensurate with their qualification, and the said position having remained undisturbed for the last 15 years, ought not to be disturbed at this late stage specially when the private respondents are now occupying higher positions in the Forest Department. 8.1 Mr. E.G. Suja, learned counsel representing the private respondents submits that by virtue of their superior qualification, they have been inducted directly into the cadre of Assistant Chief Forest Officer and the said induction having been made as far back as in the year 1996 and the position having been settled for all these years, cannot be permitted to be disturbed so late at the instance of the petitioner, who at the relevant point of time was not even a Ranger and was posted only as a Deputy Ranger. 8.2 It is further argued by Mr. Suja that the petitioner was very much aware of the decision taken by the Council to induct the private respondents in the cadre of Assistant Chief Forest Officer and notwithstanding such knowledge, the petitioner has slept over his right and equitable relief claimed after such long delay, ought to be refused at the threshold. 9. It can be noticed that for the post of Assistant Chief Forest Officer, the Service Rules does not prescribe any particular mode of recruitment, i.e., direct recruitment or by promotion. Therefore, the induction of the private respondents directly into the cadre of Assistant Chief Forest Officer is not contrary to the provisions of the Service Rules. 10. What is now required to be examined is whether because of the bonds executed by the private respondents it was mandatory for the Council to offer appointment to the respondents to posts of Rangers only. 10. What is now required to be examined is whether because of the bonds executed by the private respondents it was mandatory for the Council to offer appointment to the respondents to posts of Rangers only. As can be seen that clause 2 of the bond makes it obligatory for the recipient of the stipend to serve the Council at least for a period of 5 years in the rank of Forest Ranger "if they were required to do". From the quoted rider, it is clear that it was left to those, who have successfully completed their training in the State Forest Service College, Coimbatore. If at that point of time the Council wanted the private respondents to serve as Forest Ranger for a period of 5 years, as a bond condition the respondents would have been obliged to serve accordingly. But the bond did not place any fetters on the Council. 11. The relevant records of the Council of the year 1996 have been produced by Mr. Kynta for perusal of the court which shows the decision making process leading to induction of the private respondents in the cadre of Assistant Chief Forest Officer. On perusal of the records I find that the Council had decided to directly recruit the private respondents in higher posts considering their superior qualification and the availability of two posts of Assistant Chief Forest Officer. The said decision appears to have been taken bona fide and in public interest and even assuming that a challenge at this belated stage is maintainable, I find no good ground to interfere with the said decision taken by the Council in the year 1996. 12. That apart, although the petitioner claims that he was unaware of appointment of the private respondents in the cadre of Assistant Chief Forest Officer, considering the fact that the petitioner has been serving in the Forest Department in various capacities right since the year 1983, I find it difficult to accept that he was unaware of the induction of the respondents in the higher cadre for all these years and that he learnt of the same only in August 2005. 13. 13. It is also seen that after the private respondents were recruited as Assistant Chief Forest Officer in the year 1996, they were promoted as Deputy the respondent No.4 was promoted as the Chief Forest Officer on 28.2.2006 and respondent No.5 as Additional Chief Forest Officer on 31.8.2006. Thus, it is apparent that both the respondents have gone on to occupy higher position in the Forest Department even before the petitioner approached this court to challenge belatedly, their entry as Assistant Chief Forest Officer in the year 1996. In my considered view, any intervention after 15 years would disturb settled seniority position of the incumbents in the Forest Department. Such intervention is not considered to be justified. 14. In view of the above discussion, the petition is dismissed without any order of cost.